Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[AmyStrange]

And here is the perfect example of what I meant by someone using prevaricated fabrications masquerading as gibberish.


-

 

[TruthCalls]

For those interested in the truth of the phone logs, here are the accurate details.


View attachment 61302

Source: Kermit/Raper

What "truth" does this supposedly convey to us? As Stacy points out, Meredith always used her English (E) phone when she called Amanda, so Amanda called the E number when trying to reach Meredith. Nothing unusual there. Further, the comment "The ITALIAN phone was, as Amanda knew, the phone with which Meredith made and received local calls." is false because, as has been pointed out, Meredith ALWAYS used her E phone to call Amanda.

What Massei infers is irrelevant. He's failing to acknowledge Meredith NEVER called Amanda using FR's I phone. The conclusion of "because Amanda knew that both of Meredith's phones had been disposed of together" is both unsupported and illogical. IF this had been the case, then the implication is Amanda is calling for show, and if that were the case then she would know she should call both.

As has been explained numerous times, the duration is irrelevant, as Amanda was not interested in leaving a VM, and the other phone was out of service. So the third bullet is also irrelevant. It's nothing more than spin.

And, of course, pointing out that Filomena called Amanda more than Amanda called Filomena, and suggesting this proves Amanda wasn't actually concerned, is a stupid argument. Once Amanda had informed Filomena what was going on, calling her back repeatedly would serve no purpose. Sure, Filomena called more often. Amanda was her only point of contact at that point, and since she was on her way to the cottage, she had nothing to do but call Amanda. I find the comment "2 calls by Filomena to reach Amanda. Filomena demonstrates herself to be really interesting in locating Meredith, making repetitive phone calls to Amanda with urgency." baseless and dishonest. How was Filomena furthering the search for Meredith by calling Amanda? She already knew what was going on, she had already told Amanda to try both numbers, and that she was on her way to the cottage. It shows she's concerned for Meredith, but the actions of everyone showed this. It's just baseless spin by Raper.

This is what you people do. No matter what the issue, you find a way to spin it negatively. This screen shot proves that Stacy had accurately conveyed what calls where made when. The only difference is "Kermit/Raper" applies a desperate negative spin to normal events. That's not displaying an interest in the truth, it's called fabricating negative spin to promote an agenda.

 

[TruthCalls]

Italian CPP Art 360 makes it statutory for a potential one-off piece of forensic evidence to be tested and it is obligatory to invite all of the parties to the proceedings to have their own appointed expert forensic scientist to witness this. The rationale behind this edict is that in a serious crime, a criminal doesn't get away with the criminal act by dint of having thoroughly washed the crime scene to obliterate any evidence of themself. If all that is left after scrubbing the suspect kitchen knife murder weapon is a small aount of organic material, then yes, criminal law does allow for it to be tested. As a Low Copy Number (LCN) often there is only sufficient quantity to do a one-off testing. The claim the sample must be large and testable several times does not apply in criminal law forensics. In addition, high RFU's are more commonly associated with blood samples. In the case of Mez, the blood having been negated by presumed scrubbing with bleach (which dishwasher tablets also contain) meant the substance which C&V dishonestly tried to claim was food starch or bread grain, whilst not being blood, still revealed the human organic presence of Mez, as identified by her DNA profile.

Art 360 does NOT excuse repeated failures to comply with ENFSI. Stop with all this BS. Garbage in/garbage out.

This entire post, like so many before it from you, is irrelevant. Until YOU learn to address the MISTAKES made with this piece of evidence, NO ONE will take you seriously. You seem to think that just because Stefanoni had the right to test the knife, all of the mistakes should be disregarded.

Oh, and BTW, it's insanely ignorant to suggest all of the blood was "negated" by presumed scrubbing with bleach, yet think DNA survived this bleach bath. You continue to ignore the fact that DNA is more easily eradicated than blood, and if the knife had undergone a scrubbing with bleach it would be IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to survive. And no, the sample C&V did not test, but which RIS later did test, produced Amanda's DNA, not Meredith's. Further, the material found WAS starch, so C&V was not being dishonest, you are. Further, the point was the starch had not absorbed any blood, which it surely would have had the knife been used in the stabbing.

 

[Numbers]

Italian CPP Art 360 makes it statutory for a potential one-off piece of forensic evidence to be tested and it is obligatory to invite all of the parties to the proceedings to have their own appointed expert forensic scientist to witness this. The rationale behind this edict is that in a serious crime, a criminal doesn't get away with the criminal act by dint of having thoroughly washed the crime scene to obliterate any evidence of themself. If all that is left after scrubbing the suspect kitchen knife murder weapon is a small aount of organic material, then yes, criminal law does allow for it to be tested. As a Low Copy Number (LCN) often there is only sufficient quantity to do a one-off testing. The claim the sample must be large and testable several times does not apply in criminal law forensics. In addition, high RFU's are more commonly associated with blood samples. In the case of Mez, the blood having been negated by presumed scrubbing with bleach (which dishwasher tablets also contain) meant the substance which C&V dishonestly tried to claim was food starch or bread grain, whilst not being blood, still revealed the human organic presence of Mez, as identified by her DNA profile.

Your rationale (the 2nd sentence in your post) does not make sense. It's not what CPP Article 360 is about. It's simply stating two important points:

1. The prosecutor, being in charge (owning, in a sense), the investigation, is entitled to use a technical consultant to perform non-repeatable forensic testing.

2. Just as Italian law provides for in certain other investigative actions (for example, interrogations, line-up identifications, and searches of premises), the adversarial principle must be respected. Therefore, the defense is allowed to have its technical expert as well as the defense lawyer present during the non-repeatable testing.

The CSC has stated in a decision No. 18246/2015 that*

The process of identifying a person's DNA through the use of a genetic profile is divided into three distinct phases, consisting of: a) the extrapolation of the genetic profile present on the evidence; b) the decoding of the genetic fingerprint of the suspect; c) the comparison between the two profiles; of the operations indicated, the only one that can present the characteristics of unrepeatability is that relating to the extrapolation of the genetic profile, due to both the small quantity of the genetic trace and the poor quality of the DNA present in it.

However, neither Knox's nor Sollecitcao's technical representative was present during the critical steps when Stefanoni extracted samples 36 A, B, and C from the knife and quantified them with the Qubit Fluorometer and went on to manipulate sample 36B by several aspiration (suction) steps in an attempt to concentrate the presumed DNA in that sample.

The remaining statements in your post are false. If the LCN sample is not divided into two samples each of which is subjected to DNA profiling, the results are not considered reliable. What Stefanoni did, she asserted, was to take the same sample and profile it twice - this doesn't make sense since the point of the second run is to obtain a measure of control by averaging out the naturally occurring statistical variations in the amplification of the LCN-DNA. The starch was really starch, as described by C&V, and it would have absorbed blood had any been present on the knife. The fact that the starch was present suggests that the knife had not been excessively cleaned. Had the knife been thoroughly cleaned in bleach, there would have been no DNA detectable by DNA profiling because bleach breaks up DNA chains. So the amplification step would have given no result; the amplification step of the profiling process depends entirely on the DNA remaining in intact chains of nucleotides.

* https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-v/art360.html

 

[Vixen]

Your rationale (the 2nd sentence in your post) does not make sense. It's not what CPP Article 360 is about. It's simply stating two important points:

1. The prosecutor, being in charge (owning, in a sense), the investigation, is entitled to use a technical consultant to perform non-repeatable forensic testing.

2. Just as Italian law provides for in certain other investigative actions (for example, interrogations, line-up identifications, and searches of premises), the adversarial principle must be respected. Therefore, the defense is allowed to have its technical expert as well as the defense lawyer present during the non-repeatable testing.

The CSC has stated in a decision No. 18246/2015 that*


However, neither Knox's nor Sollecitcao's technical representative was present during the critical steps when Stefanoni extracted samples 36 A, B, and C from the knife and quantified them with the Qubit Fluorometer and went on to manipulate sample 36B by several aspiration (suction) steps in an attempt to concentrate the presumed DNA in that sample.

The remaining statements in your post are false. If the LCN sample is not divided into two samples each of which is subjected to DNA profiling, the results are not considered reliable. What Stefanoni did, she asserted, was to take the same sample and profile it twice - this doesn't make sense since the point of the second run is to obtain a measure of control by averaging out the naturally occurring statistical variations in the amplification of the LCN-DNA. The starch was really starch, as described by C&V, and it would have absorbed blood had any been present on the knife. The fact that the starch was present suggests that the knife had not been excessively cleaned. Had the knife been thoroughly cleaned in bleach, there would have been no DNA detectable by DNA profiling because bleach breaks up DNA chains. So the amplification step would have given no result; the amplification step of the profiling process depends entirely on the DNA remaining in intact chains of nucleotides.

* https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quinto/titolo-v/art360.html

This is what the final merits court via Nencini Appeal Court ruled - the last court weighing up the evidence and the facts of the case:

. There is no doubt, in the opinion of this Court, that the result of the analysis on trace 36B would be absolutely insufficient, considered in isolation, to indicate the penal responsibility of anybody for the murder of Meredith Kercher, but this is not because it is a question of altered or contaminated DNA, a circumstance that was already excluded above, or an ambiguous result. The reason is a different one, situated in the fact that the amplification could not be repeated, and thus, even in the presence of a piece of evidence that was properly admitted and has an unambiguous meaning, it still does not have [217] the probative strength to constitute a unique element whose evaluation indicates the penal responsibility of any person in relation to a given crime. However, in the case at hand, the result of the attribution of the DNA to the profile of the victim, arrived at by methods of analysis and interpretation that were quite correct, should constitute an element of evidence that can be evaluated in the trial, just like all of the many other elements of circumstantial evidence which, evaluated as a body, can rise to the status of a proof. In the course of a trial based on circumstantial evidence, no one piece of the admitted evidence is by itself entirely apt to constitute a proof of the penal responsibility of the accused. All of the admitted evidence previously analyzed, evaluated, and critically interpreted by this Court are elements of evidence which, examined one by one in order to evaluate a possible extraneousness with respect to the facts of the trial – an extraneousness which, if present, would exclude them ab origine [from the start] from judgment – should then be evaluated as a body to see whether each of them, interacting with the others, is suitable to participate in a comprehensive picture that can rise to the status of a proof. In this comprehensive procedure, the Court must thus evaluate the results of the genetic analysis on trace 36B performed by the Scientific Police, a result that for the reasons already explained several times cannot by itself constitute an element of absolute proof, but certainly does constitute one important piece of the evidence that leads to a possible assertion of penal responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

In sum, it was one small piece of circumstantial evidence that of itself looked at in isolation means little but looking at the circumstantial evidence as a whole (logical sequence, chronology, how it fits in with other evidence, etc) it cannot be excluded as evidence as part of the big picture.

<snip>

The small quantity of genetic material available for analysis made it impossible to assert with certainty that the substance was blood (even if it is not possible to exclude the presence of blood in the sample, as asserted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her examination at the 22 May 2009 hearing before the First Instance Court), but this is not the problem: indeed, Dr. Stefanoni asserted in her expert report that the biological trace was attributable to Meredith Kercher, and not that the trace was hematic in nature. Thus, independently of the hematic or non-hematic nature of the biological trace, the analysis of the DNA, according to the Scientific Police, identified Meredith Kercher as the unique contributor. This Judge holds that it is significant for trial purposes that on the blade [219] of a knife seized at the home of Raffaele Sollecito, DNA from the victim Meredith Kercher was present, independently of whether it was or was not from blood.

Here is how Nencini dealt with Conti & Vecchiotti's arguments, and by extension, that of TruthCalls:

Certainly, the sample from the knife blade designated by the letter B was Low Copy Number and thus cannot produce an attribution result that is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the analysis is held by this Court to have been correct for the reasons explained above: namely because it was the profile of a single contributor – which makes errors in analysis much less probable – and because negative and positive controls showed the absence of any contamination of the exhibit. On this topic, it is useful to recall the remarks written by Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil parties, in her written report submitted to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia on 6 September 2011, and cited above. Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the prosecution, also transcribed the same table of interpretation as Prof. Torricelli and arrived at the identical conclusion (Pages 11-12 of his report in the case file). [220] It is thus impossible to share the opinion expressed by the court-appointed expert in her report, since her assertions are not borne out by the objective results of the tests performed by the Scientific Police. In what concerns points (4) and (5), their insufficiency for use in a trial context was already discussed above. Indeed, as observed earlier, even if the searches and investigations and the collection of exhibits were performed without proper observation of international protocols, it was still the task of the expert to explain to the Judge the actual time and manner of any probable contamination, so that the Judge could then assess the well-foundedness of the argument rather than being asked to accept the argument on faith. The sentence “it cannot be excluded that the result obtained from sample B (knife blade) could derive from contamination phenomena that may have taken place during any phase of the collection and manipulation or of the analytical investigations”, reported in the conclusions [of the expert report], shows, by its total generality, the complete lack of substance of the assertion made by the expert, not to mention, for the reasons already explained above, its extraneousness with respect to the principles of the criminal trial. Indeed, nothing can be excluded a priori in any criminal trial.

In other words, setting up a priori conditions do not necessarily apply in criminal law. Nencini preferred the legal argument of Torrecelli and Novelli to that of C&V. The knife culpability was already settled by Chieffi as final.

Marasca- Bruno did not have the legal remit to reinstate C&V, having been rejected twice, first directed by Chieffi to retry their claims and then by Nencini to whom the issue was returned, who found in favour of the prosecution and rejected C&V's arguments.

It is clearly an error of law for M-B to bring back C&V without a further merits trial.

In addition, Nencini strongly criticised C&V for lying about Stefanoni's controls and confirming that she did lodge the relevant raw data material with the court, contrary to their claims.

Now, it turns out from the records of the preliminary hearings, which were produced during the first instance trial with the agreement of all parties, that on 4 October 2008, during a hearing before the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Court of Perugia and in response to a specific question by Prof. Pascali (one of the consultants for the defendant Raffaele Sollecito), Dr. Stefanoni asserted that the negative and positive controls existed, that they had been examined and evaluated by her, and could be produced on simple request (and in truth at that very hearing she submitted those relating to Exhibit 165B, the bra clasp). This circumstance, also mentioned in the report submitted by Dr. Stefanoni following the outcome of the expert report submitted by Conti and Vecchiotti, was true and in fact was confirmed by the fact that Prof. Giuseppe Novelli made the effort to ask for them and duly obtained them, so that he was able to examine them and deduce the absence of contamination of the exhibit under analysis. The Court holds that the behavior of Prof. Carla Vecchiotti is deserving of strong condemnation, since before making an incorrect statement in a report, and then deriving from it further incorrect considerations on the reliability or unreliability of laboratory analyses performed by others, it should have been her duty to ask Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni for the positive and negative controls whose existence she had asserted at a trial hearing. Only in the case where they were not provided should Prof. Vecchiotti have then drawn the conclusions that were due. This initiative should have been undertaken as a duty, since it is expressly contained in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, in article 288, regulates the investigative activity that an expert should and must follow with the goal of furnishing a correct response to the question posed by the Judge.

~ The drafting President Signature of President of the Court Alessandro Nencini



.

 

[Numbers]

This is what the final merits court via Nencini Appeal Court ruled - the last court weighing up the evidence and the facts of the case:




In sum, it was one small piece of circumstantial evidence that of itself looked at in isolation means little but looking at the circumstantial evidence as a whole (logical sequence, chronology, how it fits in with other evidence, etc) it cannot be excluded as evidence as part of the big picture.

<snip>





Here is how Nencini dealt with Conti & Vecchiotti's arguments, and by extension, that of TruthCalls:

Certainly, the sample from the knife blade designated by the letter B was Low Copy Number and thus cannot produce an attribution result that is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the analysis is held by this Court to have been correct for the reasons explained above: namely because it was the profile of a single contributor – which makes errors in analysis much less probable – and because negative and positive controls showed the absence of any contamination of the exhibit. On this topic, it is useful to recall the remarks written by Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil parties, in her written report submitted to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia on 6 September 2011, and cited above. Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the prosecution, also transcribed the same table of interpretation as Prof. Torricelli and arrived at the identical conclusion (Pages 11-12 of his report in the case file). [220] It is thus impossible to share the opinion expressed by the court-appointed expert in her report, since her assertions are not borne out by the objective results of the tests performed by the Scientific Police. In what concerns points (4) and (5), their insufficiency for use in a trial context was already discussed above. Indeed, as observed earlier, even if the searches and investigations and the collection of exhibits were performed without proper observation of international protocols, it was still the task of the expert to explain to the Judge the actual time and manner of any probable contamination, so that the Judge could then assess the well-foundedness of the argument rather than being asked to accept the argument on faith. The sentence “it cannot be excluded that the result obtained from sample B (knife blade) could derive from contamination phenomena that may have taken place during any phase of the collection and manipulation or of the analytical investigations”, reported in the conclusions [of the expert report], shows, by its total generality, the complete lack of substance of the assertion made by the expert, not to mention, for the reasons already explained above, its extraneousness with respect to the principles of the criminal trial. Indeed, nothing can be excluded a priori in any criminal trial.

In other words, setting up a priori conditions do not necessarily apply in criminal law. Nencini preferred the legal argument of Torrecelli and Novelli to that of C&V. The knife culpability was already settled by Chieffi as final.

Marasca- Bruno did not have the legal remit to reinstate C&V, having been rejected twice, first directed by Chieffi to retry their claims and then by Nencini to whom the issue was returned, who found in favour of the prosecution and rejected C&V's arguments.

It is clearly an error of law for M-B to bring back C&V without a further merits trial.

In addition, Nencini strongly criticised C&V for lying about Stefanoni's controls and confirming that she did lodge the relevant raw data material with the court, contrary to their claims.

Now, it turns out from the records of the preliminary hearings, which were produced during the first instance trial with the agreement of all parties, that on 4 October 2008, during a hearing before the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Court of Perugia and in response to a specific question by Prof. Pascali (one of the consultants for the defendant Raffaele Sollecito), Dr. Stefanoni asserted that the negative and positive controls existed, that they had been examined and evaluated by her, and could be produced on simple request (and in truth at that very hearing she submitted those relating to Exhibit 165B, the bra clasp). This circumstance, also mentioned in the report submitted by Dr. Stefanoni following the outcome of the expert report submitted by Conti and Vecchiotti, was true and in fact was confirmed by the fact that Prof. Giuseppe Novelli made the effort to ask for them and duly obtained them, so that he was able to examine them and deduce the absence of contamination of the exhibit under analysis. The Court holds that the behavior of Prof. Carla Vecchiotti is deserving of strong condemnation, since before making an incorrect statement in a report, and then deriving from it further incorrect considerations on the reliability or unreliability of laboratory analyses performed by others, it should have been her duty to ask Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni for the positive and negative controls whose existence she had asserted at a trial hearing. Only in the case where they were not provided should Prof. Vecchiotti have then drawn the conclusions that were due. This initiative should have been undertaken as a duty, since it is expressly contained in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, in article 288, regulates the investigative activity that an expert should and must follow with the goal of furnishing a correct response to the question posed by the Judge.

~ The drafting President Signature of President of the Court Alessandro Nencini

Yes, the Nencini court opinion was legally wrong - it was unlawful -and quashed by the Marasca CSC panel judgment, which was the court superior to the Nencini court. In fact, current Italian law does require evidence to be considered in isolation for relevance and other admissibility factors, and for a fact to be inferred from evidence, that evidence must be serious (probative), precise, and consistent. So the alleged DNA of Kercher alleged to have been found on the knife blade, but in reality, contamination (probably caused by Stefanoni's lab practices), can't be used as evidence and certainly not as evidence to infer a fact against Knox or Sollecito.

As for the other Nencini remarks you quote, they are likewise unlawful absurdities. Nencini was not an expert in DNA and often wrong on points of law, as the Marasca CSC panel stated in their MR. All the negative and positive control results must be presented, not merely a select few as decided by the prosecution or the prosecution's expert consultant. Stefanoni turned over only a few of the controls, suppressing all the rest. That all are required if requested by the defense is international law - ECHR case law - based on the principles of equality of arms and the right to have adequate facilities for defense.

180. Refusal to hear any witnesses or examine evidence for the defence but examining the witnesses and evidence for the prosecution may raise an issue from the perspective of equality of arms....

452. The “facilities” which everyone charged with a criminal offence should enjoy include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings....

Source: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

 

[Vixen]

As a footnote: Alessandro Nencini is now higher in rank than Marasca and Bruno, as of 2021.

Judge Alessandro Nencini is the new President of the Court of Appeal of Florence.

--
Court of Appeal: Alessandro Nencini new president. "Justice reform? Epochal but clear ideas and a precise political will will be needed"
https://www.firenzetoday.it/cronaca/nuovo-presidente-corte-appello-nencini.html
© FirenzeToday

 

[Stacyhs]

This is what the final merits court via Nencini Appeal Court ruled - the last court weighing up the evidence and the facts of the case:




In sum, it was one small piece of circumstantial evidence that of itself looked at in isolation means little but looking at the circumstantial evidence as a whole (logical sequence, chronology, how it fits in with other evidence, etc) it cannot be excluded as evidence as part of the big picture.

<snip>





Here is how Nencini dealt with Conti & Vecchiotti's arguments, and by extension, that of TruthCalls:

Certainly, the sample from the knife blade designated by the letter B was Low Copy Number and thus cannot produce an attribution result that is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the analysis is held by this Court to have been correct for the reasons explained above: namely because it was the profile of a single contributor – which makes errors in analysis much less probable – and because negative and positive controls showed the absence of any contamination of the exhibit. On this topic, it is useful to recall the remarks written by Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil parties, in her written report submitted to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia on 6 September 2011, and cited above. Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the prosecution, also transcribed the same table of interpretation as Prof. Torricelli and arrived at the identical conclusion (Pages 11-12 of his report in the case file). [220] It is thus impossible to share the opinion expressed by the court-appointed expert in her report, since her assertions are not borne out by the objective results of the tests performed by the Scientific Police. In what concerns points (4) and (5), their insufficiency for use in a trial context was already discussed above. Indeed, as observed earlier, even if the searches and investigations and the collection of exhibits were performed without proper observation of international protocols, it was still the task of the expert to explain to the Judge the actual time and manner of any probable contamination, so that the Judge could then assess the well-foundedness of the argument rather than being asked to accept the argument on faith. The sentence “it cannot be excluded that the result obtained from sample B (knife blade) could derive from contamination phenomena that may have taken place during any phase of the collection and manipulation or of the analytical investigations”, reported in the conclusions [of the expert report], shows, by its total generality, the complete lack of substance of the assertion made by the expert, not to mention, for the reasons already explained above, its extraneousness with respect to the principles of the criminal trial. Indeed, nothing can be excluded a priori in any criminal trial.

In other words, setting up a priori conditions do not necessarily apply in criminal law. Nencini preferred the legal argument of Torrecelli and Novelli to that of C&V. The knife culpability was already settled by Chieffi as final.

Marasca- Bruno did not have the legal remit to reinstate C&V, having been rejected twice, first directed by Chieffi to retry their claims and then by Nencini to whom the issue was returned, who found in favour of the prosecution and rejected C&V's arguments.

It is clearly an error of law for M-B to bring back C&V without a further merits trial.

In addition, Nencini strongly criticised C&V for lying about Stefanoni's controls and confirming that she did lodge the relevant raw data material with the court, contrary to their claims.

Now, it turns out from the records of the preliminary hearings, which were produced during the first instance trial with the agreement of all parties, that on 4 October 2008, during a hearing before the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Court of Perugia and in response to a specific question by Prof. Pascali (one of the consultants for the defendant Raffaele Sollecito), Dr. Stefanoni asserted that the negative and positive controls existed, that they had been examined and evaluated by her, and could be produced on simple request (and in truth at that very hearing she submitted those relating to Exhibit 165B, the bra clasp). This circumstance, also mentioned in the report submitted by Dr. Stefanoni following the outcome of the expert report submitted by Conti and Vecchiotti, was true and in fact was confirmed by the fact that Prof. Giuseppe Novelli made the effort to ask for them and duly obtained them, so that he was able to examine them and deduce the absence of contamination of the exhibit under analysis. The Court holds that the behavior of Prof. Carla Vecchiotti is deserving of strong condemnation, since before making an incorrect statement in a report, and then deriving from it further incorrect considerations on the reliability or unreliability of laboratory analyses performed by others, it should have been her duty to ask Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni for the positive and negative controls whose existence she had asserted at a trial hearing. Only in the case where they were not provided should Prof. Vecchiotti have then drawn the conclusions that were due. This initiative should have been undertaken as a duty, since it is expressly contained in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, in article 288, regulates the investigative activity that an expert should and must follow with the goal of furnishing a correct response to the question posed by the Judge.

~ The drafting President Signature of President of the Court Alessandro Nencini

Guess what? Nencini was annulled. Nencini was rubbish as Marasca-Bruno pointed out.

 

[Myriad]

Honestly, this is like trying to argue with someone who believes in Santa Claus. Far from objectively looking at facts, we have 'the last chance saloon of a scoundrel' type argument, with a three-in-one package of the Ultimate Logical Fallacy thrown in. We have the ad hominem-cum-tu quoque-cum-faux equivalence all bunged in together! I admire you, Myriad. I really do! So, if one were to discuss Ted Bundy, say, anyone arguing for his guilt (confessed or otherwise) why, such a person is just like Bundy themself! My, my. Respect. We need a new logical fallacy titled the 'Myriad logical fallacy', wherein we have...a myriad of them

No coherent argument detected.

You have repeatedly claimed that AK "wrote stories about rape and killings" to argue that she is some kind of murderous psychopath.

You then posted, yourself, a wishful fantasy of leaving a loved one to die and then returning to abuse the corpse.

These easily verifiable objective facts are either proof that you blatantly apply double standards about such things, or are a shocking confession on your part.

 

[Stacyhs]

Citation, please, of the 'twelve bits of tissue'.

.

You're asking for a citation?

 

[Stacyhs]

For those interested in the truth of the phone logs, here are the accurate details.


View attachment 61302

Source: Kermit/Raper

.

The commentary is nothing more than a biased spin produced by a TJMK favorite, James Raper.

This is my source: "Amanda Knox phone activity for the time period between 01/10/2007 to 06/11/2007 www.perugiamurderfile.net "


Click on my link and it's easily shown that between Oct 1 and Nov. 2, Knox consistently called Kercher's UK phone with the exception of the call on Nov. 2.

Raper has blacked out the phone numbers. Below is the original without the blacked out numbers.



Purple arrow = AK (3590) to MK (1571 UK Phone)
Green arrow = AK to MK (3711 ITALIAN phone)

 

[Stacyhs]

See previous pages, where the near-full DNA profile of Mez is graphed.


.

NO, I am NOT searching for something that is God knows where. I have repeatedly asked you for a quote and citation from any forensic expert, aside from Stefanoni, that agrees there was a full 15-allele profile of Kercher. You have repeatedly failed to do so then try to fob it off on me to go look for something that may or may not exist or is from Stefanoni herself.

 

[Stacyhs]

Art 360 does NOT excuse repeated failures to comply with ENFSI. Stop with all this BS. Garbage in/garbage out.

"The experts went on to cite 54 times, on the video tapes, where the Italian CSI-team failed to follow proper procedures to prevent contamination. At one point, one of the technicians complains the whole search is incredibly "disorganized"."

This entire post, like so many before it from you, is irrelevant. Until YOU learn to address the MISTAKES made with this piece of evidence, NO ONE will take you seriously. You seem to think that just because Stefanoni had the right to test the knife, all of the mistakes should be disregarded.

Oh, and BTW, it's insanely ignorant to suggest all of the blood was "negated" by presumed scrubbing with bleach, yet think DNA survived this bleach bath. You continue to ignore the fact that DNA is more easily eradicated than blood, and if the knife had undergone a scrubbing with bleach it would be IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to survive. And no, the sample C&V did not test, but which RIS later did test, produced Amanda's DNA, not Meredith's. Further, the material found WAS starch, so C&V was not being dishonest, you are. Further, the point was the starch had not absorbed any blood, which it surely would have had the knife been used in the stabbing.

The colpevolisti want to have it both ways: No blood on the knife = bleach scrubbing but the bleach scrubbing did not destroy Kercher's DNA at the same time. You'd think the cognitive dissonance would cause their heads to explode. But, no....

 

[Vixen]

No coherent argument detected.

You have repeatedly claimed that AK "wrote stories about rape and killings" to argue that she is some kind of murderous psychopath.

You then posted, yourself, a wishful fantasy of leaving a loved one to die and then returning to abuse the corpse.

These easily verifiable objective facts are either proof that you blatantly apply double standards about such things, or are a shocking confession on your part.

I quite understand it can be difficult to follow a trial - rather than carefully placed press releases with 'columnists' or gossip rags with a particular slant in mind - but these are the final facts of the case.

Finally, [we come to] Exhibit no. 177). This is a sample of presumed blood, revealed using the luminol technique carried out on the flooring in the room used by Filomena Romanelli. The analyses attributed the biological trace to an Amanda Knox-Meredith Kercher mix. The finding is of unquestionable importance in this trial, considering that the mixed trace of the victim and the defendant was found inside the room of Filomena Romanelli, in a place where – unlike the flat’s small bathroom – there was obviously no regular presence on the part either of Amanda Knox or of Meredith Kercher. This room, furthermore, was the site of the simulated entry by unknown burglars set up by the perpetrators of the murder in order to lead the investigations astray during the period following the committing of the crime, when they were therefore in a condition that could transfer the victim’s blood there. [192] At the end of this excursus [digression] on the biological traces that proved useful for DNA extraction (many traces, in fact, even if correctly collected, did not give a useful identification of human DNA), it may be noted that the traces of the victim’s blood were found in more or less all the rooms of the cottage, except for Laura Mezzetti’s room, thus revealing that, after the murder, the rooms of the cottage were the object of repeated entry on the part of the accomplices, in order either to set up the simulation several times previously mentioned, or to carry out a clean-up of the majority of the traces of blood left more or less everywhere – a cleanup activity that was aimed at the whole flat, with the sole exclusion of the room occupied by Laura Mezzetti (where, obviously, no one had any need to enter) and also of Meredith Kercher’s room, which was then locked by key.

~ AN


It is an established fact that Knox and Sollecito spent a lot of time rearranging the crime scene, including trying to move the body closer to the bed. In addition, Knox' lamp is on the floor of the murder room, which she claimed under cross-examination she had not noticed was missing, despite being the only light in her room, aside from light coming in from across the hall terrace. Sollecito told Kate Mansey, of the DAILY MIRROR, Mez' body was 'covered in vaseline'. Only someone present would know of the vaseline jar at the murder scene.


It's hard to accept that someone you have come to consider a celebrity is not who you thought they were. But facing reality is better than fooling yourself.



.

 

[Vixen]

NO, I am NOT searching for something that is God knows where. I have repeatedly asked you for a quote and citation from any forensic expert, aside from Stefanoni, that agrees there was a full 15-allele profile of Kercher. You have repeatedly failed to do so then try to fob it off on me to go look for something that may or may not exist or is from Stefanoni herself.

View attachment 61330

 

[Vixen]

The commentary is nothing more than a biased spin produced by a TJMK favorite, James Raper.

This is my source: "Amanda Knox phone activity for the time period between 01/10/2007 to 06/11/2007 www.perugiamurderfile.net "

View attachment 61329
Click on my link and it's easily shown that between Oct 1 and Nov. 2, Knox consistently called Kercher's UK phone with the exception of the call on Nov. 2.

Raper has blacked out the phone numbers. Below is the original without the blacked out numbers.

View attachment 61328

Purple arrow = AK (3590) to MK (1571 UK Phone)
Green arrow = AK to MK (3711 ITALIAN phone)

Here are the official facts, as established and proven by the courts:

From the telephone records of the cell phone used by Amanda Marie Knox it appears that the first telephone contact of the day on 2 November 2007 was made at 12:07:12 pm to the English service used by Meredith Kercher. Later, at 12:08:44 pm the telephone used by Amanda Marie Knox called Filomena Romanelli’s service. This was the first telephone call made to Ms. Romanelli by the defendant on the [152] day of 2 November 2007, preceded by a first telephone contact with the English service used by the victim. A first discrepancy is immediately noticeable between what the defendant states in the memorial and what is ascertained from the telephone records. At the moment when Amanda Marie Knox rang Filomena Romanelli she had already made a call to the English telephone used by Meredith Kercher, not therefore the opposite. This first version of the facts will then be modified by the accused in June 2009, in the course of her examination during the hearing before the First Instance Court, when the young woman transposed the times of the two telephone calls, matching her own statements to the objective preliminary data that had in the meantime become known and which, on the date of 9 November 2007 could not have been known, as the telephone records had not yet even been acquired. The First Instance Court, commenting on the fact that the accused had made the first contact with the English service used by the victim before calling Filomena Romanelli, hypothesized that the telephone call made to the service of the victim had been done with the sole aim of checking that the cell phones, removed after the murder from the dwelling in Via della Pergola, had not been found by anyone. The comment is valid, since it does not otherwise make sense, even putting aside the timing of the telephone calls which the defendant changed in the course of the hearings, why Amanda Marie Knox, in the event she had had the intention of finding out about her English friend’s condition, not having received a reply from the English telephone service used by Meredith Kercher, did not try to call the other service, the one with an Italian SIM card, of which the accused was perfectly aware. And in fact the defendant, after having had the first conversation with Filomena Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm, and at the latter’s urging, actually made two calls to the service used by Meredith: at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service, and at 12:11:54 pm to the English service. With regard to the two telephone calls mentioned above, an observation must be made that the Court holds to be of definite circumstantial value. It is apparent from the telephone records in the case file that when Amanda Marie Knox made the two telephone calls to the services of the victim, at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service, and [153] at 12:11:54 pm to the English service, she had been expressly encouraged to do so by Filomena Romanelli, with whom she had spoken at 12:08:44 pm. The psychological state in which the defendant obviously should have been, one of understandable apprehension, since having discovered a disturbing environment in the apartment in Via della Pergola, and after speaking with Ms. Romanelli, who had expressed to her the need to check on Meredith Kercher, the only one of the young women of whom there was no certain news, Amanda Marie Knox should have naturally been affected by a certain anxiety in calling Meredith Kercher’s telephone services. From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even enough time to repeat the first ring. Filomena Romanelli indeed made two unsuccessful calls to the service used by Amanda Marie Knox, at 12:12:35 pm and at 12:20:44 pm, and let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and for a good 65 seconds the second time; an insistence that appears normal for anyone who intends to speak on the telephone with someone who, however, does not immediately answer the telephone. The telephone is allowed to ring for a considerable period of time in the hope of receiving a reply before resigning oneself to ending the call. But that did not happen when Amanda Marie Knox called the two cell phones used by Meredith Kercher. These are two calls that barely registered. And as far as the Vodafone service 348-4673711 is concerned, the records show that the message-bank service began (even if this circumstance should however have created apprehension), as far as the English service with the SIM card inserted in the Sony-Erikson (sic) cell telephone is concerned, nothing appears other than the failure to answer the call. The fact that the two calls to services used by Meredith Kercher did not alarm the defendant has only one plausible explanation. There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Marie Knox when she hurried to make the two telephone calls to the young English woman simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew [154] were useless. Having thrown away the telephones in open countryside (at least that is what Amanda Marie Knox thought) in a place not often visited, nobody would have been able to answer those calls; let alone poor Meredith Kercher whom, the accused knew, was lifeless, locked in her own bedroom. ~ AN

All else is spin.



.

 

[TruthCalls]

Here are the official facts, as established and proven by the courts:

From the telephone records of the cell phone used by Amanda Marie Knox it appears that the first telephone contact of the day on 2 November 2007 was made at 12:07:12 pm to the English service used by Meredith Kercher. Later, at 12:08:44 pm the telephone used by Amanda Marie Knox called Filomena Romanelli’s service. This was the first telephone call made to Ms. Romanelli by the defendant on the [152] day of 2 November 2007, preceded by a first telephone contact with the English service used by the victim. A first discrepancy is immediately noticeable between what the defendant states in the memorial and what is ascertained from the telephone records. At the moment when Amanda Marie Knox rang Filomena Romanelli she had already made a call to the English telephone used by Meredith Kercher, not therefore the opposite. This first version of the facts will then be modified by the accused in June 2009, in the course of her examination during the hearing before the First Instance Court, when the young woman transposed the times of the two telephone calls, matching her own statements to the objective preliminary data that had in the meantime become known and which, on the date of 9 November 2007 could not have been known, as the telephone records had not yet even been acquired. The First Instance Court, commenting on the fact that the accused had made the first contact with the English service used by the victim before calling Filomena Romanelli, hypothesized that the telephone call made to the service of the victim had been done with the sole aim of checking that the cell phones, removed after the murder from the dwelling in Via della Pergola, had not been found by anyone. The comment is valid, since it does not otherwise make sense, even putting aside the timing of the telephone calls which the defendant changed in the course of the hearings, why Amanda Marie Knox, in the event she had had the intention of finding out about her English friend’s condition, not having received a reply from the English telephone service used by Meredith Kercher, did not try to call the other service, the one with an Italian SIM card, of which the accused was perfectly aware. And in fact the defendant, after having had the first conversation with Filomena Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm, and at the latter’s urging, actually made two calls to the service used by Meredith: at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service, and at 12:11:54 pm to the English service. With regard to the two telephone calls mentioned above, an observation must be made that the Court holds to be of definite circumstantial value. It is apparent from the telephone records in the case file that when Amanda Marie Knox made the two telephone calls to the services of the victim, at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service, and [153] at 12:11:54 pm to the English service, she had been expressly encouraged to do so by Filomena Romanelli, with whom she had spoken at 12:08:44 pm. The psychological state in which the defendant obviously should have been, one of understandable apprehension, since having discovered a disturbing environment in the apartment in Via della Pergola, and after speaking with Ms. Romanelli, who had expressed to her the need to check on Meredith Kercher, the only one of the young women of whom there was no certain news, Amanda Marie Knox should have naturally been affected by a certain anxiety in calling Meredith Kercher’s telephone services. From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even enough time to repeat the first ring. Filomena Romanelli indeed made two unsuccessful calls to the service used by Amanda Marie Knox, at 12:12:35 pm and at 12:20:44 pm, and let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and for a good 65 seconds the second time; an insistence that appears normal for anyone who intends to speak on the telephone with someone who, however, does not immediately answer the telephone. The telephone is allowed to ring for a considerable period of time in the hope of receiving a reply before resigning oneself to ending the call. But that did not happen when Amanda Marie Knox called the two cell phones used by Meredith Kercher. These are two calls that barely registered. And as far as the Vodafone service 348-4673711 is concerned, the records show that the message-bank service began (even if this circumstance should however have created apprehension), as far as the English service with the SIM card inserted in the Sony-Erikson (sic) cell telephone is concerned, nothing appears other than the failure to answer the call. The fact that the two calls to services used by Meredith Kercher did not alarm the defendant has only one plausible explanation. There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Marie Knox when she hurried to make the two telephone calls to the young English woman simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew [154] were useless. Having thrown away the telephones in open countryside (at least that is what Amanda Marie Knox thought) in a place not often visited, nobody would have been able to answer those calls; let alone poor Meredith Kercher whom, the accused knew, was lifeless, locked in her own bedroom. ~ AN

All else is spin.

From the above;

The First Instance Court, commenting on the fact that the accused had made the first contact with the English service used by the victim before calling Filomena Romanelli, hypothesized that the telephone call made to the service of the victim had been done with the sole aim of checking that the cell phones, removed after the murder from the dwelling in Via della Pergola, had not been found by anyone. The comment is valid, since it does not otherwise make sense, even putting aside the timing of the telephone calls which the defendant changed in the course of the hearings, why Amanda Marie Knox, in the event she had had the intention of finding out about her English friend’s condition, not having received a reply from the English telephone service used by Meredith Kercher, did not try to call the other service, the one with an Italian SIM card, of which the accused was perfectly aware.
This is NOT a fact, nor was it proven by the court. It's an opinion, and it's not even a logical one. As has been pointed out, Amanda and Meredith, when talking on the phone, always used Meredith's English phone, not the Italian one. So why would Amanda think of using a phone the two of them never used?

Next, we have this;

From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds; the one at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even enough time to repeat the first ring. Filomena Romanelli indeed made two unsuccessful calls to the service used by Amanda Marie Knox, at 12:12:35 pm and at 12:20:44 pm, and let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and for a good 65 seconds the second time; an insistence that appears normal for anyone who intends to speak on the telephone with someone who, however, does not immediately answer the telephone.
Here the court is displaying it's utter lack of understanding on how phone systems work. Filomena didn't let the phone ring 36 seconds and later, 65 seconds. As has been noted numerous times, the duration of a call is only based on after the call is answered. In both cases above, Amanda answered the call and spoke to Filomena, and that's how the calls got to 36 and 65 seconds in duration.

And more;

The telephone is allowed to ring for a considerable period of time in the hope of receiving a reply before resigning oneself to ending the call. But that did not happen when Amanda Marie Knox called the two cell phones used by Meredith Kercher. These are two calls that barely registered.
More evidence the court doesn't understand how the phone network works. The two calls were short because (1) Amanda chose not to leave a VM when she started hearing the message and (2) because the phone was out of service and it only took a couple of seconds to understand that message.

And finally;

The fact that the two calls to services used by Meredith Kercher did not alarm the defendant has only one plausible explanation. There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Marie Knox when she hurried to make the two telephone calls to the young English woman simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew [154] were useless.

Here the court has decided, much like yourself, they can read the minds of others. It seems pretty clear to me that Amanda WAS very much concerned, yet the court, because it doesn't understand how the phone system works, has concluded two short calls to Meredith's two numbers is evidence Amanda wasn't concerned.

So, what you posted does establish some facts, such as when the calls were made. But it also clearly established the court didn't understand how phone networks work, and as a result of that ignorance, formed an opinion which has no merit. As for what was proven... other than the court was pretty ignorant on phone networks, it didn't prove a damn thing.

 

[Numbers]

As a footnote: Alessandro Nencini is now higher in rank than Marasca and Bruno, as of 2021.

It is true that Nencini is president of the Court of Appeals of the Florence District. It's not clear what are the official duties of that position. It may well be to administer the workflow of the courts to assure none of the judges are overburdened.

Contrary to your statement, judges in the Court of Cassation, in a panel, may quash or approve any judgment from a Court of Appea)ls that properly - lawfully - comes before that panel. So saying that the president of the Court of Appeals of a judicial district outranks a CSC judge is neither a meaningful nor true statement.

 

[Myriad]

I quite understand it can be difficult to follow a trial - rather than carefully placed press releases with 'columnists' or gossip rags with a particular slant in mind - but these are the final facts of the case.

Finally, [we come to] Exhibit no. 177). This is a sample of presumed blood, revealed using the luminol technique carried out on the flooring in the room used by Filomena Romanelli. The analyses attributed the biological trace to an Amanda Knox-Meredith Kercher mix. The finding is of unquestionable importance in this trial, considering that the mixed trace of the victim and the defendant was found inside the room of Filomena Romanelli, in a place where – unlike the flat’s small bathroom – there was obviously no regular presence on the part either of Amanda Knox or of Meredith Kercher. This room, furthermore, was the site of the simulated entry by unknown burglars set up by the perpetrators of the murder in order to lead the investigations astray during the period following the committing of the crime, when they were therefore in a condition that could transfer the victim’s blood there. [192] At the end of this excursus [digression] on the biological traces that proved useful for DNA extraction (many traces, in fact, even if correctly collected, did not give a useful identification of human DNA), it may be noted that the traces of the victim’s blood were found in more or less all the rooms of the cottage, except for Laura Mezzetti’s room, thus revealing that, after the murder, the rooms of the cottage were the object of repeated entry on the part of the accomplices, in order either to set up the simulation several times previously mentioned, or to carry out a clean-up of the majority of the traces of blood left more or less everywhere – a cleanup activity that was aimed at the whole flat, with the sole exclusion of the room occupied by Laura Mezzetti (where, obviously, no one had any need to enter) and also of Meredith Kercher’s room, which was then locked by key.

~ AN


It is an established fact that Knox and Sollecito spent a lot of time rearranging the crime scene, including trying to move the body closer to the bed. In addition, Knox' lamp is on the floor of the murder room, which she claimed under cross-examination she had not noticed was missing, despite being the only light in her room, aside from light coming in from across the hall terrace. Sollecito told Kate Mansey, of the DAILY MIRROR, Mez' body was 'covered in vaseline'. Only someone present would know of the vaseline jar at the murder scene.

Difficult to follow what trial? Do you think there's a trial going on here? There's no trial. The trial is over. Well over a decade ago. There's no need for anyone to follow it.

Pretend facts "established" by incompetent prosecutors for use in a trial (or malicious hack reporters for use in sensationalist articles about the trial) don't mean anything any more.

The actual historical facts include, finding both MK and AK's DNA (aka "presumed blood" where the word "presumed" is a synonym for "not shown to be by any evidence") in "more or less all of the rooms" in the apartment where they lived means nothing regardless of what color text you post it in.

 

[Numbers]

Difficult to follow what trial? Do you think there's a trial going on here? There's no trial. The trial is over. Well over a decade ago. There's no need for anyone to follow it.

Pretend facts "established" by incompetent prosecutors for use in a trial (or malicious hack reporters for use in sensationalist articles about the trial) don't mean anything any more.

The actual historical facts include, finding both MK and AK's DNA (aka "presumed blood" where the word "presumed" is a synonym for "not shown to be by any evidence") in "more or less all of the rooms" in the apartment where they lived means nothing regardless of what color text you post it in.

Also to be included among the "pretend facts" from incompetent (or dishonest) prosecutors are the judicial facts fabricated from non-credible evidence or otherwise imagined into the motivation report by biased or incompetent judges.